When we see records being broken and unprecedented events such as this, the onus is on those who deny any connection to climate change to prove their case. Global warming has fundamentally altered the background conditions that give rise to all weather. In the strictest sense, all weather is now connected to climate change. Kevin Trenberth

HIT THE PAGE DOWN KEY TO SEE THE POSTS
Now at 8,800+ articles. HIT THE PAGE DOWN KEY TO SEE THE POSTS

Saturday, March 29, 2014

Reuters' climate coverage has continued to drop significantly under
the regime of its new "skeptic" editor, with less than half the amount
of climate coverage compared to before the editor took over, according
to a Media Matters study. This finding comes despite two major
reports on climate science that occurred during this period, suggesting
that the paper's "climate of fear" may have persisted.

Former Reporter: "Skeptic" Editor Ingrassia Created A "Climate Of Fear" In The Newsroom. In
July 2013, former Reuters Asia climate change correspondent David
Fogarty revealed that when Paul Ingrassia -- a self-identified "climate
change sceptic" -- took over as deputy editor-in-chief, a"climate of
fear" surrounding climate change coverage followed. From Fogarty's blog
at the Reuters-centered website The Baron:

From very early in 2012, I was repeatedly told that climate and
environment stories were no longer a top priority for Reuters and I was
asked to look at other areas. Being stubborn, and passionate about my
climate change beat, I largely ignored the directive. It was a
strange repositioning of editorial focus for Asia, which has some of the
world's top polluters and some of the greatest environmental challenges
taxing economies and governments. In April last year, Paul
Ingrassia (then deputy editor-in-chief) and I met and had a chat at a
company function. He told me he was a climate change sceptic. Not a
rabid sceptic, just someone who wanted to see more evidence mankind was
changing the global climate. Progressively, getting any climate
change-themed story published got harder. It was a lottery. Some desk
editors happily subbed and pushed the button. Others agonised and asked a
million questions. Debate on some story ideas generated endless
bureaucracy by editors frightened to take a decision, reflecting a
different type of climate within Reuters -- the climate of fear.
By mid-October, I was informed that climate change just wasn't a big
story for the present, but that it would be if there was a significant
shift in global policy, such as the US introducing an emissions
cap-and-trade system. Very soon after that conversation I was
told my climate change role was abolished. I was asked to take over the
regional shipping role and that I had less than a week to decide. I decided it was time to leave.
By far one of the most bizarre climate e-mail exchanges occurred on 30
October regarding Hurricane Sandy. I offered to kick-off a story from
Asia leading on the storm's impact on public opinion on climate change,
given it occurred a week before presidential elections and was the type
of storm climate scientists say we should expect as the planet warms.
There was a huge amount of commentary to draw on from other media and
commentators. A senior Top News editor in Asia shot down the
idea saying "climate change is one of those topics that can get people's
backs up." Michael Stott, the Europe, Middle East and Africa regional
editor in London, in turn, shot down that editor's view and urged the
story to be written, saying: "Many other media will follow this trail --
it's an obvious angle and one we should explore." Reuters in
the US did the story, about 48 hours later than everyone else, despite
reporters there itching to get a story out sooner. Since I've
left, I've lost count of the number of people who have asked me why
Reuters' climate change coverage has changed in tone and fallen in
volume. [The Baron, 7/15/13]

Since Ingrassia's Promotion To Managing Editor, Reuters' Climate Coverage Has Decreased Further. A Media Matters analysis
released on July 23, 2013, supported Fogarty's suspicions, finding that
Reuters reported on climate change almost twice as much before
Ingrassia became deputy editor-in-chief. Since Ingrassia became managing
editor in February 2013, Reuters' climate coverage has only worsened,
according to an analysis of the six-month period following our initial
study. From July 24, 2013, to January 24, 2014, Reuters published 221
articles and 103 mentions about climate change, for a total of 324
stories. This is an 8% drop from 353 stories during an equivalent
time period under the "pre-skeptic" editor's regime (which saw 353 total
stories), and a more than 50% decrease from an equivalent time
period before Ingrassia took over (675 total stories).

Just under half of Reuters' coverage (44%) was focused on
policy -- a decrease from our previous study (63%) -- and
coverage focused on science increased slightly from 12% to 14%. The articles quoted primarily politicians and government
officials (45 percent of the time) -- similar to the previous study (41%) -- but their usage of scientists increased slightly to 19% of the time from 12% [Media Matters, 7/23/13] [University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2/4/13].

Reuters Still Uses False Balance On Occasion

CJR: Reuters Reporters Felt Pressure To Provide False Balance. The Columbia Journalism Review reported
that several Reuters reporters "felt pressure from management to add
'balance' to climate change stories by including the views of
global-warming skeptics":

It's worth noting that most newsrooms around the country have reduced
coverage of climate change-related issues since 2010. In 2011,
Environment & Energy Publishing, which produces Greenwire,
ClimateWire, and four other news services, estimated they reduced
climate coverage by about 13%. According to an assessment
published by The Daily Climate, The New York Times cut its global
warming article count by 15%, and The Guardian slashed coverage
by 21% that same year. (Reuters, too, dropped its climate
coverage by 27% in 2011, before Ingrassia came aboard.)

But rumblings in the Reuters newsroom signal that the most recent dip
in climate coverage is accompanied by a shift in editorial angle. I
spoke on background to several journalists working at Reuters, who said
that since Ingrassia was hired, they've felt pressure from management to
add "balance" to climate change stories by including the views of
global-warming skeptics. "I'm really glad someone outside the company is
looking into this," said one staffer who did not wish to be identified.
"I think this is the most worrying thing any of us have seen here" [Columbia Journalism Review, 7/26/13].

Reuters Articles Have Added "Skeptic" Modifiers On Whether Climate Change Is Manmade. On
February 16, 2014, for instance, Reuters published an article on John Kerry's
comments calling man-made climate change "perhaps the world's most
fearsome weapon of mass destruction." Reporter Mohammed added a
qualifying "skeptic" statement, that global warming might be "due to
natural variability or other non-human factors":

The global scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change have said it is at least 95% probable that human
activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant cause
of global warming since the 1950s.

However, some skeptics argue that a rise in global temperatures is due to natural variability or other non-human factors.

The fact that temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15
years despite a continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions has also
emboldened those who question the need for urgent action [Reuters, 2/16/14].

Reuters' Decline In Coverage Came Despite Major IPCC Report. On
September 27, 2013, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on the
state of climate science, finding that humans are the "dominant cause"
of "unequivocal" climate change, with the same certainty that cigarettes
can kill. The IPCC releases Assessment Reports once every 5 to 7
years, yet even in including coverage of this major report, Reuters'
climate coverage continued to decline. A Media Matters analysis
of the report's media coverage found that Reuters mentioned the alleged
"slowdown" in global warming in 42% of its stories, a misleading
factoid that has been been wrongly seized on by "skeptics" to cast
doubt on global warming. And the news agency helped provide widespread
attention to prominent "skeptic" Bjorn Lomborg [Media Matters, 10/10/13].

CJR: Reuters Gave "Ambivalent" Coverage To "New Normal" Of Climate Change. The
American Meteorological Society released their "State of the Climate"
report in August, detailing a "new climate 'normal' " in 2012. The Columbia Journalism Review reported
that the findings received "surprisingly limited analysis" given "the
importance of the information," including Reuters, which just provided a
"short summary" that included a "skeptical insertion":

On Tuesday, the American Meteorological Society released its annual
"State of the Climate" report, a hefty, 258-page document chronicling
changes in global warming data. Compiled by members of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with 384 scientists from
52 countries, the report is used to set and influence domestic climate
policy and distributes statistics that form the baseline for discussions
of climate change.

This year's report holds a wide roster of data -- ranging from
interesting to doomsday -- and most major newspapers and wire serves at
least ran something based on the report press release. But considering
the importance, and acute detail, of the information contained in the
release, the mainstream press provided a surprisingly limited amount of
analysis.

Reuters filed a short summary, "Signs of new climate 'normal'
apparent in hot 2012 report," culling information entirely from NOAA's
press release, with one skeptical insertion framing the slowing surface
temperature rise: "The decrease in temperatures has been noted by
climate-change skeptics who question the impact of human activities." [Columbia Journalism Review, 8/12/13]